STAKES HIGH AS COURT EXAMINES HEALTH LAW

Ruling could be biggest statement on regulatory power since the 1930s

The law’s advocates counter that opponents are obfuscating the real issues weighing down the health care system.

“There is no liberty interest in forcing other people to pay your medical bills,” said Joe Onek, a veteran lawyer in Washington, D.C.

Elections would guarantee that Congress doesn’t overstep its bounds, Onek and other supporters said. And not purchasing health insurance is in itself an “activity” because failure to do so shifts health-care costs onto insurance policyholders nationwide, they said.

“The ‘inactivity’ argument has no legitimate foundation,” said Robert Field, a law professor and health-policy expert at Drexel University in Philadelphia. “The only issue should be whether the mandate is necessary to regulate interstate commerce.”

Field and others argue the mandate, in fact, is an appropriate mechanism to ensure the insurance risk pool is large enough to handle the law’s other main provisions: Barring insurance companies from refusing coverage to those with pre-existing medical conditions, or charging them higher premiums.

Opponents are betting the court’s five-justice conservative majority will hold together and scuttle “Obamacare.” Supporters said they expect to win over at least one conservative vote. Up for grabs, they said, are Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Anthony Kennedy and maybe even the court’s conservative stalwart, Justice Antonin Scalia.